DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the at least one groove" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is therefore unclear which at least one groove the claim is referring to. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret “the at least one groove” as “at least one groove”. However, clarification and correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowable pursuant to addressing the Double Patenting rejection of claims 1-11 set forth in this Office action (see “Double Patenting” section below).
Further, claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art is Van Esbroeck et al. (US20180029296), and further in view of
Schultheiss et al. (US20170297261).
Regarding claim 1, Van Esbroeck teaches an apparatus (additive manufacturing device
10; Figure 1) for making a stereolithographic object (cured layer 51; Figure 8), the
apparatus comprising:
a platform (build platform 40; Figure 8) for making the stereolithographic object thereon
(see cured layer 51 on build platform 40 in Figure 8) a vessel (vessel 20; Figure 1) comprising a
plurality of vessel side walls (upper portions 21; Figure 1), and a flexible element ([0042] lower
wall 11 is formed from a flexible and preferably elastic material, and may be a flexible
membrane formed from a fluoropolymer and/or elastomer) extending between the plurality of vessel side walls, a reference surface (surface 34; Figure 1) that is flat for receiving the flexible
element and configured for flattening the flexible element when so received ([0045] In this
position, the rigid curing panel 33 supports the weight of the resin in the vessel 20, so as to
prevent the membrane 11 sagging and to provide a planar platform for formation of a cured
layer 51 of resin; Figure 4), wherein the flexible element is mounted between the reference
surface and the platform (see lower wall 11 between surface 34 and build platform 40 in Figure
4), the flexible element being in spaced apart relation to the
reference surface to define a gap extending between the reference surface and the flexible
element (see air gap 60 in Figure 5 and 6), wherein in use a material for making the
stereolithographic object (polymerisable material 50; Figure 5 and 6) is disposed between the
platform and the flexible element;
a positioner operably coupled to at least one of the platform ([0039] build platform 40 is
lowered (i.e. moved towards) or raised (i.e. moved away) with respect to the lower wall 11) and
the reference surface and operable to reduce the distance between the platform and the
reference surface (see distance between build platform 40 and surface 34 being reduced from
Figure 3 to 5 as build platform 40 is lowered), wherein when the distance between the platform
and the reference surface is so reduced the gap remains at least partially open (see air gap 60 in
Figure 5); and
a flexible element tensioner (upper portions 21 and lower portions 22 of the vessel 20;
Figure 5), the flexible element tensioner being configured to support the flexible element, while
spaced apart from the reference surface ([0043] The flexible membrane 11 is affixed between upper portions 21 and lower portions 22 of the vessel 20 which are held together by screws or
other suitable fasteners 23).
While Van Esbroeck teaches that the apparatus may comprise an air-tight enclosure
comprising the reference surface and the flexible element ([0077] the device 10, 10′ may
comprise an air-tight enclosure within which the curing unit 30 and membrane 11 are
contained, and a pump which may be actuated to evacuate the enclosure), Van Esbroeck fails to explicitly show any structure related to the air-tight enclosure, and therefore fails to
explicitly teach the flexible element tensioner is around a perimeter of the reference surface
and defining at least one pressure equalization port through the flexible element tensioner; wherein the at least one pressure equalization port and the flexible element are cooperatively arranged such that the gap is in pressure communication with an exterior for pressure equalization between the gap and the exterior.
Schultheiss cures said deficiencies and teaches a flexible element tensioner (holding
device 58; Figure 3) around a perimeter of the reference surface (see 58 surrounding sheet of
glass 38 which has a top surface that is noted as the reference surface) and defining at least one
pressure equalization port through the flexible element tensioner (peripheral groove 74; Figure 4);
wherein the at least one pressure equalization port and the flexible element (release element 46; Figure 4) are cooperatively arranged such that the gap is in pressure communication with an exterior (see (fluid introduction device 92 in Figure 8)) for pressure equalization between the gap and the exterior ([0122]- [0123]).
However, Van Esbroeck and Schultheiss fail to teach the flexible element tensioner is
inboard of the plurality of vessel side walls. Rather, the flexible element tensioner of Van
Esbroeck and Schultheiss are outside the plurality of vessel side walls (see upper portions 21
and lower portions 22 of the vessel 20 in Figure 1 of Van Esbroeck faces away and are external
to the vessel side walls, and holding device 58 of Schultheiss lies below the vessel side walls).
Claims 2-11 depend from claim 1 and, therefore, the subject matter overcomes the prior art on record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,115,728 (herein referred to as “Reference Patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, Reference Patent teaches an apparatus for making a stereolithographic object (see claim 1 line 1-2 in Reference Application), the apparatus comprising:
a platform for making the stereolithographic object thereon, a vessel comprising a plurality of vessel side walls, and a flexible element extending between the plurality of vessel side walls, a reference surface that is flat for receiving the flexible element and configured for flattening the flexible element when so received, wherein the flexible element is mounted between the reference surface and the platform, the flexible element being in spaced apart relation to the reference surface to define a gap extending between the reference surface and the flexible element, wherein in use a material for making the stereolithographic object is disposed between the platform and the flexible element (see claim 1 line 3-10 of Reference Application);
a positioner operably coupled to at least one of the platform and the reference surface and operable to reduce the distance between the platform and the reference surface, wherein when the distance between the platform and the reference surface is so reduced the gap remains at least partially open (see claim 1 line 11-14 of Reference Application); and
a flexible element tensioner inboard of the plurality of vessel side walls, the flexible element tensioner being configured to support the flexible element, while spaced apart from the reference surface, around a perimeter of the reference surface and defining at least one pressure equalisation port through the flexible element tensioner (see claim 1 line 15-18 of Reference Application;
wherein the at least one pressure equalisation port and the flexible element are cooperatively arranged such that the gap is in pressure communication with an exterior for pressure equalization between the gap and the exterior (claim 1 line 19-22 and claim 11 of Reference Application).
Claim 2 is rejected over claim 2 of Reference Patent.
Claim 3 is rejection over claim 3 of Reference Patent.
Claim 4 is rejection over claim 4 of Reference Patent.
Claim 5 is rejection over claim 5 of Reference Patent.
Claim 6 is rejection over claim 7 of Reference Patent.
Claim 7 is rejection over claim 9 of Reference Patent.
Claim 8 is rejection over claim 11 of Reference Patent.
Claim 9 is rejection over claim 12 of Reference Patent.
Claim 10 is rejection over claim 14 of Reference Patent.
Claim 11 is rejection over claim 15 of Reference Patent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARIELLA MACHNESS/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights